Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national

Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men. However, only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women. Therefore, the reason there are so few women who win elections for these offices is not that women have difficulty winning elections but that so few women want to run.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the conclusion given?

------------------

Hi ritula,


There's nothing wrong with option E. IMHO, in fact, everything is right with option E.

Premise 1: Last year in the United States, women who ran for state and national offices were about as likely to win as men.

Premise 2: Only about fifteen percent of the candidates for these offices were women.

Conclusion: There are few women who win elections for these offices not because they have difficulty winning elections but because very few of them want to run.

What can we do to weaken the conclusion? We can attack (weaken) either of the following points:
1. not because they have difficulty winning elections
2. but because very few of them want to run

Explanation:

(A) Last year the proportion of women incumbents who won reelection was smaller than the proportion of men incumbents who won reelection. ---> It's more like a Red-Herring. Though, we are talking about election, we are not concerned about what happens during re-election. I have no problem accepting this option as a distraction.

Still if someone is not OK with this explanation, here's for you: I assume the above statement to be true but I would also like to add that the proportion of women incumbents who won normal elections (where no reelection was held) was far greater than the proportion of men incumbents who won normal elections. If this is true, you cannot say that the argument is undermined.

(B) Few women who run for state and national offices run against other women. ---> I found this tricky. One woman competes against another woman but that does not affect the argument. Why?

w.r.t. Point 1: This option does not show why they have difficulty winning elections. Whether a woman fights against a man or a woman, how does it matter? Is she facing difficulty in winning? No!

w.r.t. Point 2: This option only states that few women run for elections but it DOES NOT state why only few of them are interested in contesting elections.

(C) Most women who have no strong desire to be politicians never run for state and national offices. ---> This actually strengthens the conclusion by stating that many of them aren't interested in running for elections.

(D) The proportion of people holding local offices who are women is smaller than the proportion of people holding state and national offices who are women.
---> Irrelevant.

(E) Many more women than men who want to run for state and national offices do not because they cannot get adequate funding for their campaigns. ---> This very clearly attacks (weakens) point 1. Lack of funds for campaigning can be a major factor for someone's defeat in an election.
-----------------------

So, my choice is option E.

Hope that helps.


Regards,
Technext